If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

KATD League Issue

Issue: The Durability grades are not working properly. All players have defaulted to a "10" (max) grade.

I held off on reporting this issue for two reasons. One, I didnt notice it until the 2nd or 3rd week of the season and didnt really realize what was happening until after that. Then, once I figured out the problem, I contacted support at Dave Koch Sports to see if there was a fix/solution and I havent received a response in about a week and a half.

The problem is this: As you know, this is a Durability rating, but since we are doing an All-Time draft with historical players, it made more sense to do a Longevity rating. I just assumed (like all the other player rating factors) we could use whatever figures we wanted and basically create our own rules. Problem is, there are some minimum settings for certain players based on their stats. And we have set up each player's stats to be based on a 16 game season. Let's take a look at Terrell Davis as an example. Over a 16 game season, he averaged (real stats, not the simulated season we are playing now) 339 carries (over 21 per game). And with only 78 career games, we determined his Durability (Really Longevity) rating to be a "3." But the system wont accept a guy with a 3 Durability to have 339 carries. Its a stark contradiction. We're saying he breaks down easily, yet he has one of the heaviest workloads in the leage.

So, seems like the only way to fix this would be to use a percentage of the players stats and reduce the number of games he played. So instead of saying he had a 16 game season, to say he only played in 5 games that year. That doesnt mean he can only play in 5 of our games, it just means that he will get winded easier and need to spend more time on the bench, and also he will have a greater chance of injury.

If you recall the draft, this has been the intent of the Durability rating all along. I know several of you have felt that we should use an actual "durability" rating instead of a "longevity" rating, but I dont want to have that conversation here. That's an off-season topic, so please no one bring that up. I will also remind you that many of you selected players with lower grades and better Durabilities based on this fact.

Because of the lack of Durability being taken into account, this league is currently being dominated by players with great numbers, but horrible Durability ratings. Some examples are:

Bo Jackson - Leading the league in all Rushing categories from Yards to TDs to YPC. In the conversation for league MVP. He has a Durability of a "1"
Chris Johnson - 2nd in the league in YPC has a Durability rating of a "2"
Gale Sayers - Third in the league in YPC and leading in KRs and just tearing it up has a Durability rating of a "3"
Tony Boselli - Looking at the ratings that came out today, might be the best OL in the league has a Durabilty of a "4"
Jared Allen - Lading the league in sacks with a "5" Durability rating

These are the ones I can think of top-of-my-head. There are others. And I know a lot of you passed on these types of guys because of their poor ratings.

You guys have convinced me we shouldnt change anything mid-season for the most part, but I had no idea the system would re-set all the Durability ratings to 10. I can go into my team and change Aaron Rodgers to his proper "2" rating and it will accept it. Then I go back into it and it shows "10" again.

I dont want to make things more difficult, and I certainly dont want to make more work for myself, but I dont think its fair the way things currently stand. I think we need to take a week off (or how ever long it takes, hopefully less) and let me adjust all the players to their appropriate Durability levels. What I'm proposing I do is to adjust their stats to account for less than a 16 game season for the players who need their Durability adjusted lower. So, for instance, if a RB has a Durability of a 5, maybe he needs to reflect 8 games played in a season and not all 16. If that's the case, I will simply cut his stats in half. Averages will stay the same, but attempts, Yards, and TDs get cut in half. I believe this is the only way to fix the problem and have the players accurately reflect the way we drafted them.

BTW, this should also fix the lack of injuries. I believe no one is being injured for more than the course of their current game because they are all Iron Men with "10" ratings.

I'm sure there are some strong opinions out there, so what do you guys think?

I would say we wait until after the season to make any changes....in all honesty I feel this should be a practice year and we should resolve all issues after this year and then re-draft....just my opinion so don't attack me for saying the dreaded "re-draft" word

What we've got here is failure to communicate....some men you just can't reach

We drafted based on the durability rankings posted. That is something that we need to adhere to this season.

I know it means more work, but it's not right for Bo Jackson and others mentioned to have a 10 grade.

Please fix this. There should be no one on the other side of the issue unless you want to be a hypocrite.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Joseph Palmi: Let me ask you something... we Italians, we got our families, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland, Jews their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?

Edward Wilson: The United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
-George Orwell

The only issue with this is I felt the durability rating was only going to go towards the likelihood of getting injured (not also effecting the ammount of snaps a player plays)

That's just not the case, Give. It was stated otherwise, you must have just missed it. I said somewhere that these guys would probably need to take snaps off because of their low Durability rating.

During the course of games (even with everyone with 10 ratings) players will need to sit at times. It happens 3 or 4 times per game that a guy will need to come out for 5 plays or 10 plays at a time. Luckily, those plays could come when his unit is not on the field, so they might only miss 1 or 2 plays in actuality.

That's just not the case, Give. It was stated otherwise, you must have just missed it. I said somewhere that these guys would probably need to take snaps off because of their low Durability rating.

During the course of games (even with everyone with 10 ratings) players will need to sit at times. It happens 3 or 4 times per game that a guy will need to come out for 5 plays or 10 plays at a time. Luckily, those plays could come when his unit is not on the field, so they might only miss 1 or 2 plays in actuality.

That's fine...I'm sure I just missed it...changing it now seems fine with me but I still support a re-draft for after this year with all issues corrected

What we've got here is failure to communicate....some men you just can't reach

Either way, everyone has been screaming about not changing things....but this is something the computer altered and was agreed upon and drafted to some degree off of. I think it's plain wrong to allow guys who were injury prone their entire careers to be given a 10.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Joseph Palmi: Let me ask you something... we Italians, we got our families, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland, Jews their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?

Edward Wilson: The United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
-George Orwell

And there is no way i'll ever support a re-draft. We knew there would be kinks. And i built a team that was very close to what i wanted from the start.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Joseph Palmi: Let me ask you something... we Italians, we got our families, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland, Jews their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?

Edward Wilson: The United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
-George Orwell

I wouldnt want a redraft either. The whole point was to keep a team for a number of seasons and play with what you have. Not to mention all the work that goes into just entering all the players. Probably took me 45 minutes to make all the changes for that massive trade last night.

What I'm proposing changing are the number of games played and the corresponding stats per game for all players with a Durability rating under a 10 on a go-forward basis.

This is important - Grades would not change. Only the stats.

So, take a Defensive Tackle, for instance. He has a Durability grade of a 5. He has an Overall Grade of a 6 with a Run Grade of 6 and Rush Grade of a 3. He has 6 sacks per season. The only thing that will change for this player is the number of games from 16 to 8 (I'll assume that's the ratio. Not sure, I will need to research it) and his sacks from 6 down to 3. His sacks per game will stay the same, and his Grade will remain the same. But once we lower his games played, we will give him the proper Durability rating of a 5.

You could replicate this for all other players in the league. Grades stay the same, stats get reduced, but at the same per game performance. As you know, some positions (Offenisve Linemen) are only based on Grades. For them, only the number of games will be lowered - nothing else will change. But for players who have stats to create the player in the sim, they get reduced by whatever number of games it takes to decrease their Durability grade.

But since he's a "2" Durability, maybe he only gets the equivalent of playing 3 full games (roughly 20% to equal the "2" rating). So, in 3 games his numbers now look like this:
Att - 95
Comp - 61
% - 64.2
Yards - 749
TDs - 5
INTs - 2

The percentages are roughly the same, but they are lowered to allow for fewer games and therefore a lower (read: the proper) Durability grade.

I think some of you could change your mind about re-drafting come the off-season....I see some major changes happening but maybe they won't....and drafting is half the fun anyways

If we were to re-draft (which I don't want to do because I'd like to see how this plays out over the course of several seasons) we'd likely have to do it with half a league. Too many people who should be here don't care now, and too many more would be pissed, and rightly so, about losing everyone they already had.

Maybe at some future point we do run a redraft/get two leagues running concurrently (hell, I'll draft whenever someone wants, any of the four major sports, for any time frame of players you like) but for this specific league, with this specific setup, no.

As to the actual issue at hand, Goose, you know the program. You know what it'd take to get the results to accurately reflect what it should be. I leave the decision in your hands.